Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 52

SUBTLE PRETERIST ANALYSIS IN LUKE

[image error]PMW 2020-085 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

God judged Israel in the first century because of her rejection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The preterist analysis of the Gospels highlights indisputable evidence of Jewish rejection in numerous places, as do most evangelical readings of Scripture. However, preterism goes a step further by also pointing out several more subtle indicators of Israel’s rejection of Christ — even where such are not expected. A case in point in Luke 4:22–30.

As I will show, reading this passage surprises us. However, a Narrative Critical reading can highlight important subtleties that are both helpful for interpretation and significant for a preterist analysis. The point of Narrative Criticism i(NC) s to read a passage in its full context, i.e., here the whole Gospel of Luke. In Luke, for instance, NC recognizes that Luke is telling a full, unfolding story of Jesus and his earthly ministry. Thus, NC presses us to notice what is going on in the whole Gospel in order to better understand its various pericopes. These are not random collections of stories that are loosely strung together. Rather they are developing parts of the whole unfolding narrative.

Let’s see how a Narrative Critical reading impacts our preterist understanding of Luke 4.

In Luke 4 Jesus enters the synagogue in Nazareth, the town in which he grew up (4:16). He is given the scroll of Isaiah and stands up to read from Isaiah 61. When he explains the passage, all eyes of the synagogue “were fixed on Him” (v. 20). Then we learn that “all were speaking well of Him and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from his lips” (v. 22a). This sounds very much like a rather positive response. But a surface reading taken out of context is not a proper reading.

Israel in the Bible and History (9 mp3 lectures)[image error]

by Ken Gentry

The people of Israel are the people of God. But the modern church is divided over the nature, call and identity of Israel. This lecture series covers key issues for understanding the biblical concept of Israel.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

When analyzing this passage as a part of the narrative context of the whole Gospel of Luke, we can detect some important insights.

Narrative Insights

In the first place, we see that the reaction of the Jews in Nazareth falls far short of any true insight into Jesus’s identity. For the hearers respond: “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (v. 22b). Thus, they see him only as one of them, not as he truly is, “the Son of God.” Luke has been taking great pains to demonstrate that he is the Son of God (Luke 1:32, 35; 4:3, 9) and he will continue to do so throughout his narrative (4:41; 8:28; 9:35; 10:22; 12:8; 22:69, 70).

The failure of the people to recognize Jesus’ true identity is significant in the developing historical narrative. For it will eventually result in their rejection of Christ (Luke 23:13-25) and Israel’s judgment (23:27-31).

But secondly, we also suspect something is not as it seems when we read Jesus’ response to the Nazarenes’ seemingly positive reaction to his teaching. After their “speaking well of him” regarding his “gracious words” (v. 22a), we are shocked at Jesus’ response:

“And He said to them, ‘No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, “Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’” And He said, ‘Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown. But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land; and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian’” (vv. 23–27).

How could he be so rude by uttering harsh words against those who seem to be praising him? The people did not take this well. In fact, they took it very poorly, to say the least. For they are “filled with rage” and “drove him out of the city” in an attempt to kill him (4:28–29)! How can we explain this?

Narrative Expectation

In Luke’s earlier infancy narrative, we have a record of Simeon’s prophecy about the baby Jesus. There we receive a hint of what will be going on behind the scenes in Nazareth. On the positive level, Simeon himself has the requisite spiritual insight to recognize who the baby Jesus really is. Unlike the Nazarenes, he understands Jesus’ true identity. But on the negative level he prophetically warns of the exposure of many false hearts that will result from Jesus’ ministry:

Thus, positively we read of Simeon saying: “Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, / According to Your word; / For my eyes have seen Your salvation” (Luke 2:29–30). But negatively we learn that Simeon prophesies: “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed — and a sword will pierce even your own soul — to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed” (2:35).

Simeon’s prophecy shows that Jesus will reveal the true nature of men’s sinful hearts. And we see this fact at work numerous times in Luke’s Gospel (5:21–22; 6:8; 9:46–47; 24:38). In these several passages we see Jesus looking behind the words and actions (and silences!) of men to expose the true nature of their hearts. Thus, we read: “Jesus, aware of their reasonings” (5:21–22); “He knew what they were thinking” (6:8); “knowing what they were thinking in their heart” (9:47); and “why do doubts arise in your hearts?” (24:38). Truly the “thoughts from many hearts” are being “revealed.” And it is not a pretty picture.

[image error]“Jesus, Matthew, and the Rejection of Israel” (downloadable mp3)

by Ken Gentry

Surveys the Gospel of Matthew and highlights the numerous references — direct and indirect — that suggest that Matthew’s Gospel was written (at least in part) to demonstrate that God was rejecting Israel. A great many passages in Matthew are surveyed and briefly elaborated upon.

See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com

Narrative Continuation

The dismal insight by Jesus not only occurs in Nazareth, but in the next town to which he immediately goes: Capernaum. These two towns are not only linked by the narrative proximity of the scenes (Luke 4:16-30 cp. 4:17-36), by the direct linguistic notice connecting the scenes (“And he came down to Capernaum,” Luke 4:17), and by the fact that both episodes begin the same (with his teaching on the Sabbath day, vv. 16, 31). But they are also linked by the mention of Capernaum in the Nazareth episode (Luke 4:23).

In Capernaum, Jesus’ synagogue teaching is once again received with delight (cp. Luke 4:32 with 4:22). And though the immediate context does not expose any overt opposition, as occurred in Nazareth (vv. 28-29), we read later in the same Gospel that Jesus calls down judgment on this very city In Luke 10:15 we read his excoriation: “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!” Despite a surface reading of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum in Luke 4, a later pronouncement by the Lord shows that he was not well received deep down within the people.

This is why Jesus sometimes does not commit himself to those who seem to be converted and express faith in him. For instance, in John 4:23 we read: “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.” Yet John immediately and surprisingly informs us: “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man” (John 2:24–25). The same problem arises in John 8:30–59.

So, Jesus exposes the hearts of the people of Nazareth, despite their seeming acceptance of him and his ministry.

Narrative Expansion

No only so, but Jesus’ rejection of the Nazarenes makes certain allusions that seem out of place there. In vv. 25–27 he speaks of Elisha and Elijah’s ministries. Both of these prophets healed Gentiles rather than Jews (e.g., Zarephath in Sidon and Naaman of Syria, vv. 26–27). This exposes a conflict between Israel and God, just as Jesus’ respondents are showing. And for this reason Jesus will not perform healings in Nazareth (v. 24).

So, not only does he not perform miracles for these Jews, but he subtly alludes to the developing acceptance of the Gentiles in God’s plan. This will become dramatically evident later in Christ’s commission at the end of Luke:

He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.” (Luke 4:46-48)

And we discover this developing in earnest in vol. 2 of Luke, which we know of as “The Acts of the Apostles.” Acts opens with “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). This continues in earnest throughout the historical narrative (see especially: Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:46; 14:27; 15:3, 7; 14–19; 18:6; 21:19; 22:21; 26:17; 28:28).

Thus, both these subtle and not so subtle observations perfectly fit the preterist analysis of the rejection of Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (8)

[image error]PMW 2020-084 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this eighth entry in an 8-part series I am concluding my argument that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship, in that it was under the control of Roman-controlled priests. I recommend reading the previous articles first, and in order.

Conclusion

We must recall that Jesus called first century Israel under its unbelieving authorities an “adulterous generation” (Mt 12:39//; 16:4//). That charge harkens back to OT Israel’s unfaithfulness through idolatry. Thus, the first century temple system about which John is writing, is controlled by a corrupt, Messiah-denying high priesthood and has now become an idol linked with and likened to emperor worship. For this reason, Christ begins moving his people away from the temple because with his coming it no longer serves any God-approved purpose. As Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God, 182) observes: Jesus “prophesies that God will destroy the temple . . , not only because it was becoming obsolete but because of its flawed use and Israel’s rejection of Jesus.”

The reason Christians visited the temple in Acts was not to participate in its cult worship, but to gain access for a witness to the Jews (Ac 3:11; 5:20, 25, 42; cf. 3:11; 5:12, 20). In this, they were following the example of Jesus who had “spoken openly” in “synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together” (Jn 18:20; cp. Mt 21:23; 26:55; Lk 19:47). The temple is “the meeting-point for the disciples, and the natural place for the apostles to present their claim to Jerusalem’s religious leadership that Jesus, though crucified, is Israel’s Messiah. It is a ‘natural strategic objective.’” [1] Certain key passages in Acts “indicate that the apostles were in the Temple mainly to spread the word about the fulfillment of history that they believed had begun with Jesus’ actions . . . . The Temple courtyard was the principle public meeting place in Jerusalem, and the obvious place for such activities” (Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 292).

Have We Missed the Second Coming:[image error]

A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error

by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Stephen’s martyr sermon highlights the absolute spiritual and moral failure of Israel showing that “you who received the law as ordained by angels . . . did not keep it” (Ac 7:53) — though this was the very charge against Stephen (Ac 6:13b). Israel was “stiff-necked,” “uncircumcised in heart,” “always resisting the Holy Spirit” (Ac 7:51). They persecuted the prophets [2[ and were “betrayers and murderers” of “the Righteous One (Ac 7:52). The people themselves are corrupt, their temple is corrupt, irrelevant, and wrongly exalted. It therefore detracts Israel from the proper worship of God, serving therefore as an idol. The temple services “no longer . . . represent the will of God so that that which it should have achieved is to be sought in quite different areas of religious expression. Such an attitude could eventually result in the demand that the vain but seductive temple services should cease, even that the temple should be destroyed” (Gaston 103).

Because of this perspective “the early church was accused again and again of opposition to the temple, in the case of Stephen (Acts 6:13f), Paul (Acts 21:28) and all the apostles (Evan. Pet vii, 26). It appears that [the] saying in Mk 14:58 was important in the anti-Christian polemic of the time of Mark” (Gaston 69). “The point of the speech [of Stephen] is plainly directed against the over-estimation of the temple in Jerusalem.” [3] As the second century Christian Barnabas declared: “the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple” (Barn. 16). The God-ordained cult, under the control of those crying “we have no king but Caesar,” served as an indirect means of emperor worship which John is exposing.

Hare (130) notes that “persecution occurred when Christians challenged the symbols of ethnic solidarity so sharply that they placed themselves beyond the tolerance-limits of the Jewish community.” The Jews, therefore, sought capital punishment for any who spoke against or defiled the temple, in Jeremiah’s day (Jer 26:7-8, 11; Ant. 10:6:2 §89-92) as well as in the first century (Ac 6:14; 21:26-30; 24:6; 25:7-8; Sanh. 13:5; Ros. Has. 17a; Ber. 9:13b). Josephus records the story of Jesus Ananias who preached woe against Jerusalem and the temple before finally being killed (J.W. 6:5:3 §300-09).

[image error]

Nourishment from the Word

(by Ken Gentry)

Reformed studies covering baptism, creation, creeds, tongues, God’s law, apologetics, and Revelation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Thus, “the charge leveled against Jesus at his trial that he would ‘destroy the Temple,’ though ‘false’ at one level, proves true at a deeper level. ‘Jesus is the destroyer of the Temple in a figurative sense: its destruction is the result of his death, brought about by those in charge of the Temple worship’‘ (Walker 12, citing Donald Juel). Likewise the “false witnesses” brought against Stephen (Ac 7:13) “seem to have been false more in nuance and degree than in kind. From the accusations and from his defense, it is clear that Stephen had begun to apply his Christian convictions regarding the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth in God’s redemptive program” (EBC 9:335-36). As Scharlemann (13) puts it: “The nature of this charge, as it relates to the activity of Stephen, would suggest that the witnesses are called ‘false’ because they brought their accusations with malice aforethought and not because they had themselves invented the substance of their charges” (cp. Bruce Acts 135).

NOTES

[1] P. W. L. Walker (65); cites J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959), 242.

[2] This charge of killing the prophets is stereotypical language from the OT (Neh 9:26; cp. 1Ki 19:10, 14; 21:13; 2Ch 24:21; 36:15ff; Jer 2:30; 26:20-23; Mt 5:12; Heb 11:36-37). See also Josephus, Ant. 9:13:2 §264; 10:3:1 §38.

[3] Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D. 30–150 (New York: Harper, 1959), 1:169.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (7)

PMW 2020-083 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.[image error]

In this seventh entry in an 8-part series I am arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship, being run by a corrupt priesthood in collusion with the Roman authorities. I recommend reading the previous articles first, and in order.

Wiens (62) argues regarding Stephen’s sermon that “idolatry is not so much an initial phase [of Israel’s national experience beginning with Moses] as a continuing reality, and that one of Stephen’s main points here is to contrast false and true worship at every stage of Israel’s cult.” Stephen speaks of the golden calf (Ac 7:39-41), Moloch worship (v 43), and finally mentions the Jewish temple which was “made with hands” (v 48). Wiens points out that Israel apparently believed that when they made an idol, they made the god itself, for they requested that Aaron “make for us gods” (v 40; Ex 32:1), whereupon we read that “they made a calf” and “were rejoicing in the works of their hands” (v 41). Thus, “that is what the authors of Exodus and Acts apparently wanted their readers to understand. People create their own gods if they do not worship the God who created the heavens and ‘all these things’” (Wiens 62).

[image error]

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Stephen traces Israel’s worship history and failure. He begins with Abraham’s leaving his country (Ac 7:2-5) in order to secure a “place” to worship God (7:7) through Moses’ tabernacle established in the Land (7:44-45) to his conclusion in Solomon’s building the temple “made by human hands” (7:47-48), which is “this place” against which Stephen preaches (6:13). But as he traces her worship through the ages, he highlights her rebellion against godly men (7:9, 20, 25-29, 35) and her involvement in idolatry (7:39-43). By this redemptive-historical survey Stephen emphasizes Israel’s constant failure to reach the goal of true worship. Despite the Sanhedrin’s alleged concern for Moses over against Stephen (6:13-14) Beale (Temple 218) cites John J. Kilgallen, noting that “the purpose of Acts 7:46-52 is to conclude that ‘as Moses was rejected and the people’s worship became blasphemous thereby [7:20-43], so with Christ rejected, the Temple worship becomes a blasphemy’ (Kilgallen 1976: 94).” This is because ultimately even Solomon recognized (1Ki 8:27) God “does not dwell in houses made by human hands” (Ac 7:48 citing Isa 66:1-2).

His overall point is that the goal of redemptive history is finally to come to the ultimate worship of God in a temple made “without hands,” that is, in the resurrected Christ who is the eschatological temple (cf. Jn 2:19-21; cp. Da 2:34, 45). Israel wanted to maintain her hand-made temple which “was a mere pointer to a time when God’s dwelling on earth would not be limited to a ‘handmade’ house. Israel’s physical temples were ‘handmade’ (Acts 7:44-47) and could never be a permanent dwelling place for God” (Beale Temple 222). She was satisfied with holding to the old creation “handmade” temple rather than moving on to the new creation temple made “without hands.” She preferred the old, temporal order where men could fashion hand-made idols for themselves (7:41) rather than God’s new order made without hands. “Stephen’s point in citing Isaiah 66:1 appears to demonstrate that, just as God’s own hand created the first cosmos that had become tainted with idolatry, so God would create a new, eternal creation and Jerusalem, not by human hands but by his own hand (so Is. 65:17-19 and 66:22). . . . The second temple had become idolatrous, since Israel had supplanted their tradition for God himself. The temple became the central focus of their idolatry (cf. Rom 2:22)” (Beale Temple 310).

Thus, Israel’s clinging to her temple shows that here history is one of constant failure in coming to her proper goal: “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (7:51).

Interestingly, Stephen employs the word tupos in consecutive statements in order to make an important point: He speaks of the “images” (tupous) made for the “tabernacle of Moloch” and Rompha, and then immediately of the “pattern” (tupon) of the “tabernacle of testimony.” His point appears to be that “only those who ‘see through’ the hand-made models to the God who does not dwell in created things can worship truly. Those who see only what they have made or projected worship idols. And this is as true for the tabernacle as for the temple” (Wiens 75). Thus, the Jewish devotion to the temple “made with hands” blocks their view through that temple to its God, “the Most High” (Ac 7:48). That which is good has been made bad. Jesus can in one breath declare that the temple which was to be “a house of prayer” has become a “den of robbers” (Lk 19:46). “My house” (Mt 21:13) can become “your house” (Mt 23:38).

Thus, “in some respects Stephen’s polemic is the familiar and standard sort of fare Jews used against pagan temples and theology of God’s residence that was entailed in pagan thought (cf. Acts 17:16ff).”[1] Certainly such language “is a point that any Jew might make in a polemic against paganism” (Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 74). Walker (66-67) comments regarding Stephen’s use of cheiropoiētos in his defense: “despite the Temple’s true status in God’s sight, it has effectively become for them an idol. More startling still, perhaps the Temple has actually become an idol, not just subjectively in the hearts of his audience, but objectively in the sight of God. Their subjective idolatry of the Temple (seeking to preserve the ‘holy place’ against every criticism) has been an instrumental factor in causing them to dismiss Israel’s true Messiah when he dared to speak against it (Acts 6:14). This is so serious that God has allowed that idolatry to become objective as well. The Temple has lost its former status and is now in his sight too merely a human construct (cheiropoētos), void of significance.”

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The great tragedy of Israel was that their Messiah “came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive them” (Jn 1:11) so that he wept over them for their blindness (Lk 19:41-44). Scharlemann (106) argues: “Judging from the speech ascribed to Stephen, he saw the temple as one of the institutions of Judaism that kept the Jews . . . from accepting Jesus as the Messiah. This is one reason he engaged in a frontal attack on it, in all of its religious significance. Stephen called it a human institution, an idolatrous creation, like the golden calf. Contemporary Jews were sure that the temple had been created by God’s hands; but Stephen spoke of it as ‘made with hands.'” He notes further (119): “By applying to the temple in Jerusalem the adjective ‘made by hand,’ Stephen intended to say that it had become an object of idolatry, for this is the same language he used to describe the golden calf.” Stephen was not opposed to the temple as such.[2] After all, this where Christ was dedicated to God (Lk 2:27), where he went to be in his “Father’s house” (Lk 2:46-49), and where he became enraged at the Jewish abuse of the temple (Jn 2:13-17). In fact, the temple had become “the premier symbol of a superstitious belief that God would protect and rally his people irrespective of their conformity to his will.” [3[ Beale (Temple 310) agrees: “The religious establishment superstitiously viewed the temple as a guarantee that God would guard and prosper the nation despite their disobedience to his will.”

As Stephen ends his speech he effectively deems the idolatrous Sanhedrin to be Gentiles, for they are “stiff-necked” and “uncircumcised in heart” while reminding them of the golden calf episode (Ac 7:39-41), where both charges were originally laid against Israel (Dt 10:16; Ex 33:5). He relates the golden calf idol to the temple in that both are made by “hands” (Ac 7:41, 48). Speaking “like a prophet of old” Stephen notes that “God’s indictment rests upon you just as it did on your idolatrous and apostate ancestors” (EBC 9:348). We must remember that Jesus promised to give his persecuted followers the very words to speak when brought before councils (Lk 21:12-15//). Stephen is the first martyr and gives the longest speech in Acts as a most powerful expression of Christ’s warning. His circumstances very closely parallel Christ’s trial circumstances.

In that “the word ‘handmade’ (Acts 7:48) always refers to idols in the Greek Old Testament and is without exception a negative reference in the New Testament,” Beale (Temple 224, 225) finds it significant that “the only other use in Acts refers to an idolatrous pagan temple.” In Acts 17 Paul preaches to the Athenians about their many idols, one “To an unknown God” (Ac 17:16, 23): “God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands [cheiropoiētois]” (Ac 17:24). This also picks up on Jesus’ statement and, like Stephen’s defense, alludes to Isa 66:1-3. Still later Paul is accused of turning people from idolatry “saying that gods made with hands [dia cheirōn ginomen (a different expression)] are no gods at all” (Ac 19:26). [4[ Rev 9:20 also mentions the idols which were “the works of their hands [ergōn tōn cheirōn].”

NOTES

[1] Ben Witherington, Acts, 273n.

[2] F. F. Bruce, Acts, 143-44.

[3[ Carson, Matthew (EBC) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 442.

[4] Here, however, he employs different terms: dia cheirōn ginomenoi.

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (6)

[image error]PMW 2020-082 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this sixth entry in an 8-part series I am arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship because of its corrupt high-priestly aristocracy. I recommend reading the previous articles first, and in order.

Gaston (75-76) argues for “a definite anti-cultic polemic in the tradition behind the gospel according to Mark.” Thus, in Mk 14:58 the Lord himself alludes to the temple as an idol for Israel. There we read witnesses against him declaring: “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands [cheirpoiēton] and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” We see cheirpoiēton frequently used of idols in the LXX in the place of eidōlon or tupos. In the LXX the term “almost always” (TDNT 9:436) refers to pagan idols: Lev 26:1; Dt 4:28; 2Ki 19:18; 2Ch 32:19; 27:15; Psa 115:4; 135:15; Isa 2:8; 10:11; 16:12; 19:1; 21:9; 31:7; 46:6; Hab 2:18. Beale states that it “always” refers to idols (Beale, Temple 224n). Simon (133) notes that “chiropoiēton is the technical term, so to say, by which the Septuagint and the Greek-speaking Jews describe the idols.” We also find it in Philo (Vit. Mos. 1:303; 2:51, 88, 165, 168) and the Sibylline Oracles (3:650ff; 4:8-12). Consequently, Evans notes that “made with hands” is a “hint at [the temple’s] idolatrous status”; Lightfoot agrees. Therefore, Walker (10) calls this phrase “potentially incendiary.”

Many argue that Christ is setting the physical temple of Israel over against the spiritual temple (the Christian Church). This is certainly a legitimate theological truth taught elsewhere in Scripture. However, this does not appear to be Mark’s main point here as will become more evident in Stephen’s reference to Christ’s statement (see below). Besides the “not made with hands” (acheiropoiētois) statement occurs alone when speaking of eternal realities, such as spiritual circumcision (Col 2:11) and the resurrection body (2Co 5:1). It is not contrasted with cheiropoiōton, as here in Mk 14:58.

Before Jerusalem Fell (Kindle version) (by Ken Gentry)[image error]

Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing. Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This becomes all the more suggestive when we realize that two references in Acts move along these lines, Ac 7:48 and 17:24. Both of these verses to be a part of the tradition deriving from Christ’s teaching as recorded in Mark. In Ac 7:48 Stephen uses this term in warning the Jewish leaders of their spiritual failure. A great many scholars agree with Marshall who notes that “this is a derogatory word used of idol worship (e.g. Is. 31:7; Wisdom 14:8). To apply it to the temple (cf. Mk. 14:58; Heb. 9:24) could well enrage the Jews.”

This idolatry-equation is almost certainly Stephen’s intent as we can discover from his defense. He is standing before the religious authorities of Israel (elders, scribes, Sanhedrin, and the high-priest; Ac 6:12, 15; 7:1). There his accusers charge that he was preaching against the Temple just as Christ did: “we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place” (6:14; cp. Mk 14:58). Instead, of disputing the charge as altogether fraudulent, he provides a redemptive-historical argument defending his teaching when properly understood — even to the point of bringing in the additional fact from Christ’s trial that their temple was “made with hands” (7:48). In this he utters a “radical condemnation” regarding the temple (Simon 134).

Remarkably, just before Stephen speaks of the temple as “made with hands,” he mentions Israel’s fathers making the golden calf and “rejoicing in the works of their hands [ergois tōn cheirōn]” (7:41b) while they were “unwilling to be obedient” (7:39). Beale (Temple 225) sees this as making “it probable that Stephen has idolatry in mind in verse 48.” He then reminds them that God declares their sacrifices in the wilderness were “not to me” but for Moloch and “the star of the god Rompha” (7:42-43; here he is referencing Am 5:25-26). Scobie observes that “the superstitious attachment of the Jews to their temple is made to appear as a continuation of their idolatry in the desert” (Scobie, “Origins,” 394-95). Stephen’s “condemnation of the Temple includes condemnation of the sacrificial cult” in that sacrifices are not mentioned by Stephen “in connection with the Temple, but in relation to the [golden] calf” (Simon 134). He drives this point home in his closing when he declares that the Jewish leaders are virtually gentiles in having “uncircumcised ears” in not understanding God’s will (Acts 7:51).

Regarding Ac 7, Hahn (373-74) states that “the temple worship practised by the Jews is, as the word of the prophet in vv. 48ff. shows, a service of idols which denies the true godhead of God.” He continues: “In the same way the statements regarding the idols and the temple worship together with the prophetic judgments are referred to the time of the Jews then living. With this there also harmonies the inclusive word in v. 51 regarding obstinacy and impenitence with the concluding ‘as your fathers did, so do ye’” (374). He argues that “the word of threatening from Amos 5:25-27 shows that vv. 39ff. also must be understood typologically and consequently the end of v. 43 [“I also will remove you beyond Babylon”] must be referred to the catastrophe of A.D. 70” (373).

Four Views on the Book of Revelation[image error]

(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

By several means Stephen diminishes the temple and suggests that it has become an idol for Israel (cf. EBC 9:346-48): (1) He speaks highly of the “tabernacle” over against the temple, calling it “the tabernacle of testimony” (Ac 7:44a), whereas the temple is spoken of more negatively (7:48-50). (2) He notes that the tabernacle was erected by God’s word to Moses (Ac 7:44b), who is the central redeptive-hisotircal figure in his sermon (7:20-44) and who serves as a type of Christ (7:37). (3) It led Joshua in dispossessing the nations as he secured the promised land (7:45). (4) It was in use until the time of David, who “found favor in God’s sight” (7:46). (5) Then over against beloved David he states: “But it was Solomon who built a house for Him” (7:47). He probably has in mind Solomon as the one whose “wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been” (1Ki 11:4; cp. 11:4-9). Solomon’s actions led to his ruin: “So the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant’” (1Ki 11:11). Thus, the one who built the temple brought idolatry into Israel where it was to remain as a recurring plague.

Most significantly, Stephen supports his argument against the temple by specifically citing Isa 66:1-2 (7:49-50) — the two verses leading up to God’s denouncing Israel’s temple worship as idolatrous (Isa 66:3; see discussion above). “If Isaiah 66:4-5 is echoed [in Acts 7:51-52], then Stephen’s Jewish enemies are also to be identified with the idolaters in Isaiah 66:3, which would fit with Stephen’s earlier depiction fo Israel as idolatrous (Acts 7:42-43)” (Beale, Temple 223). He then concludes by equating those authorities with their idolatrous forbears, calling them “stiff-necked and uncircumcised [like Gentiles!] in heart and ears” for “always resisting the Holy Spirit . . . just as your fathers did” (7:51; v 39). The idolatrous overtones are clear and unmistakable: he “suggests that the Temple was a form of idolatry” – in the way they revered it.

Marshall concludes that Stephen “rests on the negative point, that temple-worship imposes a false limit on the nature of God.” That is, it suggests limits such as associated with idols housed in shrines. According to Witherington, the point of these verses “is not that God’s presence can’t be found in the temple . . . , but that God’s presence can’t be confined there, nor can God be controlled or manipulated by the building of a temple and by the rituals of the temple culture or the power moves of the temple hierarchy. What is being opposed is a God-in-the-box theology that has magical overtones, suggesting that if God can be located and confined, God can be magically manipulated and used to human ends. Such an approach is idolatry — the attempt to fashion or control God with human hands according to human devices.” Stephen is arguing that “the Temple was not intended, any more than the Tabernacle, to become a permanent institution, halting the advance of the divine plan for the people of God” (Bruce Acts 160, citing T. W. Manson). “Nothing is wrong with the temple itself nor with building it, but it is wrong to believe that it (and perhaps it alone) is the habitation of God. Moreover, allegiance to a temple built with human hands could place Israel in danger of repeating its earlier wilderness sin, for the golden calf had also been made by ‘their hands’ (v. 41). Although it is not certain, the repetition of this phrase might have invited such comparison” (Evans, Luke 198).

In fact, “the beginning and end of the speech, in particular, insist that the presence of God is not restricted to any one land or any material building. God revealed Himself to Abraham long before Abraham settled in the holy land; He gave His law to the people of Israel through Moses when they were wanderers in a wilderness” (Bruce Acts 141). Stephen’s speech also reduces the Land’s significance by arguing “that God’s significant activity has usually taken place outside the confines of Palestine (EBC 9:339): Abraham was called by God while in Mesapotamia (Ac 7:2-3), God was with Joseph in Egypt (7:9-16; “Egypt” appears six times), Israel “increased and multiplied in Egypt” (7:17), God raised up Moses in Egypt (7:22), and Israel received “the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness” (7:44). Now is the time for God to remove the local temple so thyat the world might have access to his worship (Jn 4:21-23), as the flow of Acts demonstrates (Ac 1:8), showing that God is now turning to the Gentiles (Ac 9:15; 11:1, 18; 13:46-47; 14:27; 15:14, 17; 18:6; 22:21; 26:17, 20, 23; 28:28).

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (5)

[image error]PMW 2020-081 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this fifth entry in an 8-part series I am arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship, when understood spiritually. I recommend reading the previous articles first, and in order.

Jewish Temple as Pagan Idol



In the final analysis, the Temple system has become for Israel an idol substituting for a right relationship with God. Formalism has replaced vitalism in worship, externalism has pushed out spirituality. The Lord rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for their empty traditionalism which “invalidated the word of God” (Mt 15:1-6), making them “hypocrites” (15:7), and showing that “this people honors Me with their lips, / But their heart is far away from me, / But in vain do they worship Me, / Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (15:8-9). He chastises Peter for not understanding the hypocrisy involved in Pharisaic hand washing rituals (15:15-20), for “not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man” 15:11).

As Galambush (72) observes:

“The charge of hypocrisy . . . is Matthew’s leading complaint against the arbiters of righteousness of his day. They lay burdens of ritual observance on others that they themselves refuse to bear, ‘they do all their deeds to be seen by others,’ they tithe the tiniest portion of their produce while avoiding the more substantial issues of justice and mercy. They are ‘whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth.”

Christ’s parables of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11-32) and the Pharisee and the Publican (Lk 18:9-17) expose the empty self-righteousness of the religious leaders. Even the rich young ruler (archōn) prefers his wealthy status over acceptance by God (Lk 18:18-25).

[image error]

Before Jerusalem Fell Lecture

DVD by Ken Gentry

A summary of the evidence for Revelation’s early date. Helpful, succinct introduction to Revelation’s pre-AD 70 composition.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Lord warns his followers: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them” (Mt 23:2-3). This dead formalism is brought into the very context of the temple when Christ curses the fig tree for showy leaves while lacking fruit (Mk 11:12-14//). He does this after surveying the temple (Mk 11:11) and just before driving out the moneychangers (Mk 11:15).

In the OT we see the same problem of devotion to the external temple rather than concern for God. There, regarding the first temple’s destruction, Israel prefers to believe false prophecies regarding its inviolability (Jer 5:31; 20:6; 27;15; 29:9, 21; Eze 13:7, 9; 22:28; cp. Rev 16:13). God warned OT Israel: “Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord’” (Jer 7:4) [1]. He threatened: “therefore, I will do to the house which is called by My name, in which you trust, and to the place which I gave you and your fathers, as I did to Shiloh” (Jer 7:14). Elsewhere Israel arrogantly declares: “Is not the Lord in our midst? / Calamity will not come upon us” (Mic 3:11). The Lord warns: “What right has My beloved in My house / When she has done many vile deeds? / Can the sacrificial flesh take away from you your disaster, / So that you can rejoice?” (Jer 11:15).

Isaiah powerfully presses this temple-as-idol problem against rebellious Israel in Isa 66:3, which “contains one of the strongest denunciations of cult in the Bible” (Oswalt 2:667). The prophet compares the sacrificial actions in the temple system to various sins, including idolatry: “But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man; / He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog’s neck; / He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine’s blood; / He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol. / As they have chosen their own ways, / And their soul delights in their abominations.”

[image error]The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole, then focuses on its glorious conclusion. Provides an important, lengthy Introduction to Revelation also.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

According to several competent exegetes, Isaiah’s prophecy has an ultimate fulfillment in the Herodian temple after Jesus’ death. For instance, Young (Isa. 3:520) argues that they “continued offering the sacrifices even after the one true Sacrifice had been offered.” Alexander (Isa. 3:460) states that this passage teaches “the general doctrine that sacrifice is hateful in the sight of God if offered in a wicked spirit, but with a special reference to the old sacrifices after the great Sacrifice for sin was come, and had been offered once for all” (cp. Watts, Isa. 34-66, 356).

NOTE

[1] Jer 7 includes the verse the Lord cites in his temple cleansing statement regarding the “den of robbers,” Jer 7:11. Walker (277) comments: “Jesus’ quoting from Jeremiah’s famous ‘Temple sermon’ . . . then gave a further clue that, as in Jeremiah’s day, the inevitable result was divine judgment — and for similar reasons. Jeremiah had spoken out against the false trust which his contemporaries were placing in the ‘Temple of the Lord’ (Jer. 7:4), seeing this gift of God as something behind which they could hide from God’s ethical concerns. Jesus’ actions and words implied that there was a similar abuse of the divine gift in his own day. The Temple was being used to service god-less agendas.”

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (4)

PMW 2020-080 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.[image error]

In this fourth entry in an 8-part series I am arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship, when understood spiritually.

Along with pride in their national shrine the Jews boast of their physical descent from Abraham, as Paul strongly indicates: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I” (2Co 11:22). This involves a trusting in the flesh (Gal 4:23, 39; 1Co 10:18 [Gk]). They pride themselves in physical circumcision (Ro 2:25-29; Gal 5:11; 6:12-13; Php 3:2-3; Tit 1:10). Indeed, they trust in all their ritual traditions as Paul’s testimony shows: “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions” (Gal 1:14). When he defends his apostleship against his opponents he writes: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I” (2Co 11:22).

We see Judaism’s strong ritual concern early in the post-Pentecost Christian witness. In Ac 6:14 Stephen is charged with an attempt to “alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” Scharlemann (102) observes that “the word translated as ‘customs’ reads eth in Greek; and this, in turn, is a translation of the Hebrew minh got. It was used to cover the whole complex set of ritual prescriptions and religious obligations assumed by the Jew when he took upon himself the yoke of the kingdom. It was the word used to refer to carrying out the requirements of the oral tradition.”

Jewish pride ultimately leads them to engage war with Rome, vainly believing they hold “God as their only Lord and Master” (J.W. 7:10:1 §410). The Zealots particularly affirm “an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord” (Ant. 18:1:5 §23). John of Gischala responds to Josephus’ calls to surrender, noting that “he did never fear the taking of the city, because it was God’s own city” (J.W. 6:2:1 §98). This repeats the error of their fathers before the first temple’s destruction as we will see below. According to the Mishnah: “Upon three things the universe stands: upon Torah, and upon the Temple service, and upon deeds of lovingkindness” (Avot 1:2:). Scharlemann comments: “How badly Jerusalem and its High Council needed to hear Stephen’s [Ac 7] warning can be demonstrated from the fact that, at almost the very moment when the temple was about to be destroyed by Roman soldiers, in August A.D. 70, a prophet was able to persuade many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem that they ought to resort to the courtyard of the temple on the conviction that the God of Israel would never permit this sanctuary to fall into the hands of Gentiles.”

[image error]

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

During his minitry the Pharisees called for Jesus to rebuke his disciples for praising him at the Triumphal Entry. Jesus warns that the temple’s destruction will result when Israel fails to accept him: “And He answered and said, ‘I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!’” (Lk 19:40). This means that “if the disciples do not speak, if they do not proclaim Jesus as the redeemer of Israel and the bringer of peace, then the eloquent message of the tumbled stones of a destroyed city will cry out to the survivors that Jerusalem should have repented” (Gaston 359). This becomes clear four verses later when he declares that their enemies “will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation” (Lk 19:44).

DeYoung has provided a careful and insightful analysis of the role of Jerusalem as a feature in the NT polemic against Israel. Paul castigates Jerusalem, the home of the temple, in Gal 4:21-31. In that passage Paul provides “a description of the hollow religious residue to which Jerusalem tenaciously clung after she rejected the salvation offered by Christ: a religion of servitude to the law” (DeYoung, JNT 103). That is, Israel clings to the ceremonial strictures of the old covenant economy as if that was the very heart of true religious devotion. Paul is showing “that Judaism, with its center in Jerusalem, was practicing a religion of bondage to the [ceremonial] law. This he does first of all by characterizing Hagar, then charging that by virtue of these characteristics she and Jerusalem have a basic similarity” (DeYoung, 104). Jerusalem has become a “slave woman” (Gal 4:22-23). This whole passage “represents, perhaps, the sharpest polemic against Jerusalem and Judaism in the N.T. It must have been quite a shock to the Jews to have their holy city linked up with ‘Hagar and her seed” (DeYoung 106).

Continuing his analysis, DeYoung (109) notes that in Heb 10-13 “there can be little doubt that the author intended these verses as an exhortation for his readers to break all ties with the Judaism of his day centered at Jerusalem. He has produced two of the most powerful arguments available. Jerusalem has lost all redemptive significance for the Christian because Christ has made the final sacrifice for sin outside the gates of Jerusalem, and redemption can only be found where he is — without the camp. Jerusalem has lost all eschatological significance; there is no abiding city on earth; hence the Christian, like Abraham, looks for the city which is to come (13:14), the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22) whose builder and maker is none other than God himself.”

[image error]

Kids Who Kill

(by Gov. Mike Huckabee)

Proposes a key to recovering our country’s basic values: faith, family, work, and community.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Hill cites J. B. Lightfoot’s observations on the significance of Stephen’s sermon. Hill writes “it was Stephen, the ‘martyr of liberty’ and acknowledged ‘forerunner’ of the apostle Paul, who ‘was the first . . . to sound the death-knell of the Mosaic ordinances and the temple worship” (Hill CC, 9). In fact, according to Weins’ (51) reflections on Acts 6:11, “the charge of abandoning Moses could soon be turned against the officials hearing and judging Stephen.”

This is because Stephen points out that their own fathers themselves turned against Moses (Ac 7:39-40), even making the golden calf (7:41). And they were as guilty as their fathers (7:52-53). Scharlemann (16) notes that Stephen’s sermon is the longest speech in Acts and that “its very length suggests that the author of Acts intended it to reflect some important facet of primitive church life.”

(To be continued.)

NOTES

[1] Cp. Lk 3:8; 16:24, 30; Jo 8:39, 53, 56; Ro 2:17ff; cp. Ro 1:16; 2:9-10; 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11.

[2] Cp. 1Co 7:18-19; Ga 5:2-3, 5; Eph 2:11; Col 2:11; 3:11.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (3)

[image error]PMW 2020-079 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this third entry in an 8-part series I am arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship, when understood spiritually.

The temple authorities, including especially the high priests, were irrevocably corrupt long before the Jewish War. Indeed, the high priest in Jesus’ day was Anna, of whom Brown (Jn 1:121) notes: “the corruption of the priestly house of Annas was notorious.” According to Josephus: “The principal high-priestly families, with their hired gangs of thugs, not only were feuding among themselves, but had become predatory, seizing by force from the threshing floors the tithes intended for the ordinary priests” (Ant.. 20.180, 206-7). The Babylonian Talmud laments: “Woe is me because of the house of Boethus; woe is me because of their staves! . . . Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi; woe is me because of their fists! For they are High Priests . . . and their servants beat the people with staves” (Pesah. 57a). “Starting by about 58 or 59, the high priests began surrounding themselves with gangs of ruffians, who would abuse the common priests and general populace” (Horsley HP 45). In fact, “the high priests and royalists actually contributed to the breakdown of social order through their own aggressive, even violent, predatory actions” (Horsley HP 24).

Completely frustrated at the high priests’ continuing collaboration with the Romans, “a group of sages/teachers called Sicarii or ‘Daggermen’ turned to assassinating key high-priestly figures (B.J. 2.254-57). . . . The population of Jerusalem was as dependent on the Temple-high-priesthood system as the high-priestly aristocracy was on their Roman sponsors” (Horsley, Galilee 73-74). In fact, “when the Roman troops under Cestius finally came to retake control of Jerusalem . . . the priestly aristocracy attempted to open the gates to them . . . (November 66; B.J. 2.517-55)” (Horsley, Galilee 74).

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Jesus preaches against the temple’s degenerate condition when he mentions the death of the son of Berechiah who was “murdered between the temple and the altar” (Mt 23:35). When we last hear Christ publicly referring to the temple he calls it “your house” rather than God’s house (Mt 23:38). Then he declares it “desolate” and ceremoniously departs from it (Mt 23:38-24:1). And it “is extremely significant that the declaration of abandonment (v. 38) is preceded by the seven woes upon the religious hierarchy of Jerusalem (vv. 13-36)” (DeYoung, JNT 91). The Qumran community existed largely because of their disdain for the corruption of the temple.

During the interchange regarding his temple actions, Jesus refers to John Baptist who calls Israel to repentance (Mt 21:24-25). John calls the people out of Jerusalem into the wilderness to repent, thereby effecting a reverse exodus (Mt 3:1-5) — as if Jerusalem is now Egypt and must be left (cp. Rev 11:8; 18:4). And he turns down the religious leaders, the Pharisees and Sadducees, demanding that they bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance” instead of basking in their pride supposing “that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Mt 3:7-9).　Christ even denounces Israel’s religious elite as “an evil and adulterous generation” (Mt 12:38-39).

Furthermore, Jesus intentionally supplants the temple cult ceremonies in his ministry (see Gaston, ch 3). He proclaims that he is “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). He teaches that loving God and neighbor “is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mk 12:22). He authoritatively declares the leper cleansed (Mk 1:40-45) instead of directing him to go to the priests in order to secure cleansing (Lev 14:2ff). He touches the unclean woman, but is not made unclean himself (Mk 5:25-34; cp. Lev 5:2-3). He declares that food does not make one unclean (Mk 7:15; cp. Lev 11:4ff). He does not even pay the temple tax except on the occasion when it might cause offense (Mt 17:24-27). And then he does not pay it out of his own purse and by means of a unique miracle. In this context “Jesus’ declaration that ‘the sons are free’ thus appears to have provided an unmistakable declaration of independence from the Temple and the attendant political-economic-religious establishment” (Horsley JSV 282).

Jesus prophesies the temple’s destruction so clearly (Jn 2:19-20; Mt 24:1ff) that the Jews mock him on the cross regarding the matter (Mt 27:40//). Later they recall this statement against his disciples (Ac 6:14). After cursing the fig tree as representing Israel (Mt 21:19) he declares that the temple mount will be cast into the sea (Mt 21:21//) (Hooker Mark 269). His trials specifically recall his statements about the temple’s destruction (Mk 14:58; Mt 26:61), though falsely claiming he said he would personally destroy it. Late in his ministry he presents a major discourse on the temple’s coming destruction (Mt 24:2ff //).

At his death the temple veil is “torn in two from top to bottom” (Mk 15:38//). “Jesus’ references to the temple hitherto in this gospel have concerned its destruction and replacement, and the tearing of the more visible and magnificent outer curtain would more naturally pick up this theme. Following the jibe of [Mk 15:29-30], this would be a particularly appropriate divine riposte: the process of the temple’s destruction and replacement has indeed begun, even as Jesus continues to hang on the cross” (France, Mk 657). The rending of the veil, then, was a “clear sign of impending destruction of the Temple” (Horsley JSV 162).　In fact, due to its embroidery with the starry heavens,[1] “its tearing would be an apt symbol of the beginning destruction, not only of the temple (which itself even as a whole symbolized the cosmos) but of the very cosmos itself” as the new creation process is begun in Christ’s death (Beale Temple 189). Consequently, this pictures “the inbreaking destruction of the old creation and inauguration of the new creation, which introduces access for all believers to God’s holy presence in a way that was not available in the old creation” (Beale Temple 190). The church Fathers often link the Temple’s destruction with Christ’s death. [2]

[image error]

He Shall Have Dominion

(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As the very heartbeat of their religion, the temple is a key element in the self-sufficient pride of the Jew. Rabbis proudly exclaim: “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never in his life seen a beautiful structure” (B. Bat. 4a; cf. Mt 24:2; Lk 21:5; Philo, Spec. 1, 72, 73; Jos., Ant. 15:11:3 ). Even the Lord’s disciples were enamored of the temple’s majesty (Mt 24:1//). The revolutionaries in Israel during the Jewish War are confident God’s temple would survive the assault of Rome. As they endure seducers and false prophets (J.W. 6:5:2 §285-86). Even during the war the Jews think the city of Jerusalem where God’s temple resides could not be defeated: “”the fighting men that were in the city were lifted up in their minds, and were elevated upon this their good success, and began to think that the Romans would never venture to come into the city any more; and that if they kept within it themselves, they should not be any more conquered” (J.W. 5:8:2 §).

Prior to AD 70 the temple’s significance is such that it was the very “foundation and focus of national worship,” one of “the three great pillars of popular Jewish piety,” “the cardinal postulates” of the Jewish faith, which includes also the Land and the Law (EBC 9:336, 337). And given the structure of ancient life in merging religious and political outlooks, “the function of the Temple was more extensive and central in Jewish society than the typical modern theological reduction to the religious dimension allows” (Horsley JSV 286).

(To be continued.)

NOTES

[1] Philo QE 2:85; Mos. 2:87-88; Jos. J.W. 5:5:4 §212-14; Ant. 3:6:4 §123, 183.

[2] Barn. 5:11-13; Justin, 1 Apol. 35; 38; 40; 47; Dial. 108; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 13:14; Apol. 26; Origen, Ag. Cels. 1:47; 4:22; Gosp. Pet. 1:1; 7:25.

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (2)

PMW 2020-078 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.[image error]

In this second entry in an 8-part series I am arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship, when understood spiritually.

Temple Abuse; Temple Transience

Over and over again the temple cult is disparaged by the OT prophets when Israel falls into sin: Isa 1:10-17; 29:13; 43:23-24; Jer 6:20; 7:1-6, 21-22; 11:15; Eze 20:25; Hos 6:5-6; Am 4:4-5; 5:21-25; 9:1; Mic 6:1-8; Mal 1:10. Jeremiah even presents God as dramatically denying he ever directed Israel to sacrifice: “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you’ ” (Jer 7:22-23).

The problem with the temple cult arises not from the God-ordained ritual, but those who minister the ritual. Consequently, “from at least the time of Malachi there had been protests about the priests, whose corruption meant that the sacrifices offered in the temple were neither pure nor pleasing to the Lord (Mal. 3:3f.). Similar complaints are found in the Psalms of Solomon (2:3-5; 8:11-13), at Qumran (1Qp Hab. 8:8-13; 12:1-10; CD 5:6-8; 6:12-17) and the Talmud (B. Pes. 57a), while Josephus describes the way in which the servants of the priestly aristocracy stole tithes from the ordinary priests (Antiquities XX.8.8; 9:2)” (Hooker Mark 264).

In the Gospel record Jesus’ subtle conduct and overt teaching prepare us for the removal of the temple as both theologically unnecessary and as spiritually corrupt. John’s Gospel is especially interesting in this regard (see Gaston 205-12; Walker 167-170; Davies Land, ch 10; Beale Temple 195ff): In Jn 1:14 Christ appears as God’s true “tabernacle” (eskenosen en emin). [1] This theme of Jesus replacing the religious features of Israel recurs repeatedly in his ministry: In 1:51 he, rather than the temple or high priest, is the nexus between heaven and earth because “the angels of God [are] ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” In 2:19-21 he declares his body the true temple. In 4:21-23 he tells the Samaritan woman the physical temple will soon be unnecessary.

The Beast of Revelation[image error]

by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

When he attends the festival of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2ff), in 7:37-39 he himself becomes the living water which is associated both with the festival reminder of Moses producing water from the rock (Ex 17:1-7; Nu 20:8-13) and the temple promise (Zec 14:8; Eze 47:1-11). In 8:12 he calls himself “the light of the world,” which reflects the festival ceremony (Sukkah 5:1). In the “I am” debate in Jn 8:13-59 “Jesus was appropriating to himself . . . the whole essence of the Temple as being the dwelling-place of the divine Name” (Walker 168). In 10:22-39 while the Jews are celebrating the Feast of Lights which recalled the re-consecration of the Temple under the Maccabees, he presents himself as the one who is “sanctified and sent.” Immediately after declaring himself “I am” (8:58) he departs from the temple (8:59), which in John’s Gospel serves as his sign that God has departed her temple (Davies Land, 290-96). This appears to be why John does not mention the temple cleansing at the close of his ministry: because in John’s structure, he has Jesus depart the temple at 8:59 taking God’s presence with him.

In Jn 10 Christ comes to the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, which celebrates the Maccabean victory in reclaiming the temple and reconsecrating the altar and temple. There Jesus does not enter the temple, but comes only to Solomon’s portico (10:23; cp. Jo 11:56; cf. Davies Land, 294-96). He declares himself to be the one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” (10:36). In 12:41 while referring to Isa 6:5 Christ becomes the Shekinah glory of the temple. Walker (172-73) argues that the upper room episode (Jn 13-17) reflects a “Temple-experience” beginning with foot-washing as an initiation ritual (Jn 13:3ff) and ending with the “high-priestly prayer” (Jn 17). Thus, it appears “John’s over-riding message is that the Temple has been replaced by Jesus” (Walker 170 [2]).

On and on I could go. In fact, in all the Gospels “there was no denial of its previous theological status, but that status was now appropriated by Jesus” (Walker 164). As Brown (John 1:122) observes: The Gospel of “John belongs to that branch of NT writing (also Hebrews; Stephen’s sermon in Acts vii 47-48) that was strongly anti-Temple.” He even notes that this may explain why he is called a “Samaritan” in Jn 8:48, in that they reject the Jerusalem temple.

On several occasions before Christ’s coming, the temple undergoes cleansings because of profanations by Ahaz (2Ch 29:12ff), Mannaseh (2Ch 34:3ff), Tobiah (New 13:4-19), and Antiochus (1Mac 4:36ff; 2Mac 10:1ff). The temple of Christ’s day is also corrupt for Christ himself symbolically cleanses it when he opens his ministry (Jo 2:13-17) and as he closes it (Mt 21:12-13) — even though it is under the direct, daily, fully-functioning administration of the high priesthood. As Horsley (JSV 163) well notes: “Once in Jerusalem, [Jesus] moves directly into the symbolic and material center of the society, the power based of the ruling aristocracy” to challenge it. In fact, Horsley (300) argues, “Jesus attacks the activities in which the exploitation of God’s people by their priestly rulers was most visible.” Thus, “Jesus’s action is a clear condemnation of the priestly authorities, who have permitted these practices: the result is that ‘the chief priests’ join ‘the scribes’ in plotting his death (cf. 3:6)” (Hooker Mark 268). Christ calls the temple they are controlling a “robbers’ den” (Mt 21:13) only to later have the “chief priests and the elders” demand the release of the robber Barrabas over him (Mt 27:40; Jn 18:40). [3] In fact, they ask him on what authority he drives out the moneychangers and teaches in the temple, since they had not commissioned him to clean up the corruption (Mt 21:23). [4] As Galambush (68) observes: “It is no coincidence that Matthew’s extravagant assertions of Jesus’ authority are placed in the context of confrontations with the Pharisees.”

Charismatic Gift of Prophecy[image error]

(by Kenneth Gentry)

A rebuttal to charismatic arguments for the gift of prophecy continuing in the church today. Demonstrates that all revelatory gifts have ceased as of the conclusion of the Apostolic era.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

DeYoung (JNT 63) argues that Christ’s actions are not an effort at reform but a testimony against the present cultus. This is evident in that in the first cleansing he alludes to its destruction (Jn 2:19) and in the immediate context of the second he curses the fig tree as symbol of Israel’s corruption (cf. Hos 9:10, 16; Mic 7:1). Hahn (155) agrees: “The procedure of Jesus in the temple precincts can only be understood as a symbolic action proclaiming judgment and punishment on the Jewish sanctuary if it is connected with the cursing of the fig tree, as it is in the present redactional context.” Wright (JVG 416) well summarizes the evidence that Christ was symbolically declaring its judgment: “Virtually all the traditions, inside and outside the canonical gospels, which speak of Jesus and the Temple speak of its destruction. Mark’s fig-tree incident; Luke’s picture of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem; John’s saying about destroying and rebuilding; the synoptic traditions of the false witnesses and their accusation, and of the mocking at the foot of the cross; Thomas’ cryptic saying (‘I will destroy this house, and no one will be able to rebuild it’); the charge in Acts that Jesus would destroy the Temple: all these speak clearly enough, not of cleansing or reform, but of destruction.”

(To be continued. If I am not too weary.)

NOTES

[1]. The writer of Hebrews critiques the temple in terms of the transitory tabernacle. He does this because the old covenant and all of ritual is “becoming obsolete and growing old” and “is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13). God is about ready to shake “created things, in order that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (Heb 12:27). The “created things” are the physical implements of the temple (Heb 9:11, 24).

[2] See also: Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966/70), 1:lxx; William D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California, 1974, 1974), 296ff; Aileen Gui.ding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960), 172ff

[3] Eventually the Jews would be overrun by robbers: “As for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude” (Ant. 20:8:5). We should remember that the Gospels are written awhile after Christ and record information to assist Christians in that later time. That Christ denounces the temple as a robber’s den should strike a sympathetic chord with Jewish Christians a few decades later. Josephus notes that the highpriests abuse the people and take away the tithes (Ant. 20:9:2), even making seditious attacks in Jerusalem (Ant. 20:9:4).

[4] During the Jewish War even Josephus speaks of God’s rejecting the temple because “he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein” (Ant. 20:8:5).

 

THE TEMPLE AS A TOOL OF EMPEROR WORSHIP (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-077 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this 8-part series I will be arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship, when understood spiritually. Let’s begin (it’s almost time for breakfast).

As John writes, Israel has been a part of the Roman regime for almost a century. As such she enjoyed special leagues of “friendship and mutual alliance” which began with Julius Caesar (Jos. Ant. 14:10:1 §185; cf. Leon 8-11). Her love for Caesar was so great that after he was murdered, Jews wept for many nights at the site of his cremation (Suetonius, Jul. 84:5). Josephus, a priestly member of the Jewish aristocracy, praises Julius and records many of the treaties with the Jews which were established by Caesar and later Roman authorities (Ant. 14:10:2-25 §190-267). He then declares: “there are many such decrees of the senate and imperators of the Romans and those different from these before us” (Ant. 14:10:26). Israel engages these alignments despite her OT prophets condemning unholy alliances as harlotry (e.g., Hos 7:11; cf. Rev 5 Excursus). As noted above, the exercise of the Land beast’s authority is “in his [the Roman emperor’s] presence” (13:1a). Later in Rev 17 we will see Israel’s alliance symbolized by a harlot engaged in a drunken sexual orgy with the sea beast.

The NT repeatedly charges the religious rulers of Israel with rejecting Jesus the Messiah (Mk 8:31; Lk 19:47; 22:52, 54, 66; 23:10; 24:20; Ac 4:8-11; 13:27). As he hangs in agony on the cross “even the rulers were sneering at Him” (Lk 23:35). They do this despite their own Scriptures pointing to him (Mt 13:15-17; Lk 24:25-27; Jn 5:39-40-47). Christ marvels that even the rulers of Israel cannot understand spiritual things (Jn 3:1, 10) and are blind (Jn 9:39-41). They even charge him before Roman authorities with forbidding paying taxes to Caesar (Lk 23:2), threatening mayhem against the temple (Mk 14:58), and promoting insurrection against Rome (Mk 15:2-4).

[image error]

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Christ often forewarns his disciples about the religious rulers’ nefarious designs against him. “From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day” (Mt 16:21//). “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death” (Mt 20:18//). He forsees the Jerusalem leadership turning him over to the Roman authorities: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon” (Lk 18:31-32). Though these are actual prophetic statements which Christ utters during his ministry, they are recorded in each gospel at a later date as an apologetic for Jesus and Christianity over against the Jewish leadership. As such they would doubtlessly be preached and taught in the church as the struggle with Judaism came to a head. “Full weight must be given to the witness of Mark 6:34 (Matt. 9:36) that in the eyes of early Christians the Jewish people were sheep without a shepherd until Jesus appeared to provide genuine spiritual leadership” (Hare 14).

In John’s Gospel we discover the point in time at which Israel legally becomes apostate: when she chooses Caesar over Christ during his criminal trial. The Jewish religious authorities (“chief priests and the officers,” Jn 19:6; cp. 18:13, 19, 22, 24) go to great lengths to employ Rome’s authority so that they might kill him: they “kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus” even bringing “many false witnesses” (Mt 27:59-60). [1] In fact, they were “accusing Him vehemently” (Lk 23:1-10, 13-20). The Roman procurator Pilate sees that he is clearly innocent so that he “made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, ‘If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar’” (Jn 19:12; cp. Ac 17:7). This “friend [philos] of Caesar” statement reminds us of the Jewish leagues of “friendship” (philian) with Caesar (Ant. 14:10:1 §185). Philo mentions that the Jews are “friends to Caesar” (Embassy 36 §280). So then, “the ‘city of the great King,’ had denounced her rightful King” (Walker 35). And that denunciation seals her doom (see Jesus’ warnings about his approaching betrayal and death, Mt 21:33-45; 22:2-14).

The chief priests vigorously denounce him before the Roman legal authority: “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). Bruce observes: “No doubt they were honest in saying that Caesar was the only basileus they knew; their status and privileges depended on their collaboration with the imperial power.” [2] They even complain to the procurator that Jesus was “misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar” (Lk 23:2). This was not the first time they had rejected God as their king (1Sa 8:5-8, 19-20; 12:12).

Lord of the Saved[image error]

(by Ken Gentry)

A critique of easy believism and affirmation of Lordship salvation. Shows the necessity of true, repentant faith to salvation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As Milligan (1903, 231) elegantly explains the situation in Jn 19:12-15: “They Caesar’s friends! They attach value to honours bestowed by Caesar! O vile hypocrisy! O dark extremity of hate! Judaism at the feet of Caesar!” Edersheim states that “with this cry Judaism was, in the person of its representative, guilty of denial of God, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed suicide.”[3] Taylor ties this in with Rev 13: “They are entirely infidel, throwing off all allegiance to any but Caesar, and cry that they have no other king. It is purely of the Jews, the whole transaction . . . . This is man’s religion, and it will, in the end, enthrone ‘the Willful One’ and bow to his image (Rev. 13).” [4]

Finally in her assertion of Roman judicial authority that Israel stumbles in her transgression (Ro 11:11-12) leading to her rejection (11:15). It is in the presence of Pilate that she cries out for her own judgment: “And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’” (Mt 27:25; cp. Ac 5:28). Operatives of the first beast drove the nails in his hands at the second beast’s insistence (Ac 2:23; 3:13-14); and the dragon is behind it all (Jn 13:2, 27; cp. Col 2:15; Rev 12:4b). We should recall once again that Israel’s putting Christ to death is the central theme of John’s drama (1:7) so that the slaughtered Lamb becomes its leading figure (5:6-13; 13:8). With her glorious heritage and privileges (Ro 3:1-2; 9:1-5) she should have known better than the Gentiles (Lk 23:34; Ac 17:30; Ep 4:17-18).

(To be continued.)

NOTES

[1] A number of scholars see the references in Acts regarding Jewish persecution and condemnation of the “Jews” as actually focusing on Israel’s leadership rather than the nation as a whole. For example: Galambush 78-92; Sanders Jews, passim.

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 365.

[3] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d., rep. 1883), 2:581.

[4] M. Taylor cited in A. W. Pink, An Exposition of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1945), 3:226.

 

 

SATAN’S FIRST CENTURY BINDING (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-076 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my previous article I began a two-part study on the binding of Satan as an important feature of the postmillennial hope. This article concludes the thoughts begun there.

The dramatic imagery that John employs in Revelation 20:1–3 teaches that Satan has been “bound” so that he “should not deceive the nations any longer.” This allows all those who are spiritually resurrected believers to “reign with him” in his kingdom. Despite popular misunderstanding of this passage, this vision speaks of realities already established in Christ’s first coming, as we can tell from several reasons.

Scripture’s Reasons

First, Christ informs us that He has already bound Satan: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matt. 12:28-29). Whatever else we might think, Christ Himself declares He has bound this strong one during his earthly ministry so that He may spoil Satan’s kingdom while establishing His own. Here Satan’s binding and Christ’s kingdom are linked together by the Lord who was teaching John who later penned Revelation 20.

[image error]

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation

By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.

It sees John as focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, Christ also teaches that salvation by grace through faith effects a spiritual resurrection to new life: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear shall live” (John 5:24-25; cp. Eph. 2:5-6; Rom. 6:5-11; 1 John 3:14). This is the backdrop to the image of the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20. Christ teaches two resurrections, which John the author of Revelation records for us: the first resurrection is a spiritual one while we are in our present life (John 5:25), the second a physical one after we leave this world at the end of history (John 5:28-29; cp. John 6: 39, 44, 54; 11:24).

Third, in the didactic introduction to Revelation John declares that we are already a kingdom of priests, which he presents in dramatic imagery in Revelation 20: “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever” (Rev. 1:6). Note the past tense: “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests.” This historical reality, which already exists when he writes Revelation, explains the symbolic vision of chapter 20 which declares: “they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him” (Rev. 20:6).

Fourth, we must note that Satan’s binding does not totally incapacitate him. Rather his binding is for an expressly declared purpose: “that he should not deceive the nations any longer” (Rev. 20:3). This speaks of the “plundering of his house” (Matt. 12:29): Satan is bound by the first century coming of Christ’s kingdom so that he may not continue to deceive and dominate the nations any longer. In the Old Testament era only Israel knew God: “He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation; And as for His ordinances, they have not known them. Praise the Lord!” (Psa. 147:19-20). “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2a; cp. Deut. 7:6-7). This is why Christ did not dispute Satan’s claim when he showed Him “all the kingdoms of the world” and said: “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me’” (Luke 4:5-6).

It is only in the past that “in the generations gone by He [God] permitted all the nations to go their own ways” (Acts 14:16). But now the whole world is open to release from Satan’s absolute dominion because of his having been bound by Christ. The Great Commission, therefore, confidently sends us out to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19)1 who previously were totally subject to Satan and “without hope” (Eph. 2:12). Jesus declares to Paul that he is sending him to open the Gentiles’ eyes “so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18).[image error]

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

 Formal, full seminary course developing and defending postmillennial eschatology.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Christ’s victory over Satan is spoken of frequently, and under various images in addition to “binding”:

“He said to them, ‘I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning’” (Luke 10:18).
“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out” (John 12:31).
“Concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (John 16:11).
“Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14).
“And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20a).
“He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him” (Col. 2:14).
“The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8b).

Our Hope

Christian, because of Christ’s triumph over Satan, the Scriptures promise you victory. As redeemed vessels of mercy, you must neither despair in your struggles nor blame Satan for your failures. Too many Christians pick up on deficient theology rampant in trite maxims such as “I can resist anything but temptation” and “the devil made me do it.”

You must remember that Christ has prayed for you: “I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15). He has taught you yourself to pray: “do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matt. 6:13).

The Bible teaches how that you may “put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). You are directed to “not give the devil an opportunity” (Eph. 4:27). You can “submit therefore to God” so that if you “resist the devil . . . he will flee from you” (James 4:7).

Satan is a powerful foe, but he is a defeated foe. Otherwise such biblical directives regarding victory over Satan would be meaningless. Christ has bound him so that he may not dominate us. The victory is ours if we but seize it.